Mideast - an overview

pv vivekanand

IF ANYONE thinks things could not get any worse than
what they are today in the Middle East — the crises in
Palestine and Iraq being the most critical — then the
thinking has to be reviewed. The reasons are very
clear, and I'd try to simplify them here:

Palestine: No compromise ever

The key to starting to solve the Palestinian problem
is for Israel to accept the legitimate rights of the
Palestinans to set up an independent state in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip —  the territories Israel
occupied in the 1967 war. Groups like Hamas and
Islamic Jihad which call for the total elimination of
the state of israel would gradually come around to
accepting that they could not regain the whole of
Palestine as it existed in 1948 and have to accept the
1967 lines. There are enough political indications
that there are enough forces in both groups which tend
to think that way and influence their actions.
But Israel, which is ready to withdraw from Gaza if
only because the coastal strip is the most problematic
to be kept under occupation, will never give up the
West Bank for a Palestinian state to be created there.
As far as Israel is concerned the entire land between
the Mediterranen Sea and the River Jordan is land that
God "promised" to the Jews. Therefore, any solution
that entails surrendering the territory for a
Palestinian state is totally out of question for
Israelis. Furthermore, the Palestinian demand for Arab
East Jerusalem touches upon the very core of Jewish
religious sentiments because of what the Jews consider
as the remnants of Solomon's Temple there which they
want to rebuild.
The best Israel will accept, whether under Ariel
Sharon or any other prime minister, is to grant the
Palestinians "autonomy" in parts of the West Bank
where Jewish settlements do not exist while the
Israeli army will retain absolute control of the
entire land and its exit and entry points as well as
access roads linking Palestinian towns.
Israel will allow the Palestinians to clean streets of
their towns, collect local taxes, run schools and
hospitals, and maintain death, birth and marriage
records. Nothing beyond that.
Israel will never accept the Palestinian demand that
those Palestinians who lost their homes and were
forced to flee their land during the 1948 war
following the creation of Israel and who now live as
refugees should be allowed to return home. Their
return, as far as Israel is concerned, will totally
negate the very concept of the Jewish state. The homes
and land that the Palestinian refugee wish to return
to are now in Israel proper and are inhabited by Jews.

The Palestinians will not accept any of these Israeli
positions at whatever cost, and hence the war of
resistance will only be intensified with no end in
sight as long as Israel maintains its position (which
no Israeli leader would be able to change anyway).
Thousands of Palestinians are standing ready to be
human bombs ready to sacrifice themselves in the
struggle for freedom, and no Israeli security measure
could check a determined fighter ready to blow himself
up.

Iraq: US will never quit

A review of the situation in Iraq also indicates a
deadlock when we consider the considerations behind
the US decision to wage war and occupy the country.
American policy in the Middle East has always been
based on three priorities: Energy security, Israeli
security and regional stability based on alliance with
countries in the region. On all three counts, it is
essential that the US maintains its military presence
in Iraq and ensure that an "America-friendly" regime
is running the country in a manner that serves US
interests
The key to starting to solve the crisis in Iraq is to
have the UN take over administration of the war-torn
country with absolute authority, with enough military
force to keep peace and enough funds to restore basic
infrastructure while the rest of the financial
requirement will come from exports of Iraqi oil.
The UN could administer Iraq for a predetermined
period during which it could help build a democratic
political system and then hand over sovereignty to the
people of Iraq.
Although it sounds simple, it is too complex.
Handing over Iraq to be run by the UN contradicts the
very objective of the United States, which led the
invasion and occupation of that country on the pretext
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
and was linked to Al Qaeda.
The US wants to set up a military base in Iraq to keep
watch over the region and to intervene whenever it
feels its interests are challenged. It wants absolute
control of Iraq's oil resources to not only to benefit
American oil companies but also to ensure its own
energy security.
It has already neutralised Iraq as a potential threat
to Israel's designs in the region but wants to ensure
that the situation remains that way.
On the third count, the US finds that it could no
longer count on its traditional allies such as Saudi
Arabia to maintain regional stability as Amerca's
friends. The US got its biggest jolt when it found
that 15 of the Sept.11, 2001 hijackers were Saudi
nationals and it warranted a new thinking. And it
explains why the US moved its military bases to Qatar
from Saudi Arabia last year. The American fears were
further heightened with the extremist attacks in Saudi
Arabia in the last one year and the rising
anti-American sentiments in the kingdom. Therefore,
the US has to remain in Iraq in order to ensure
regional stability to serve its interests since it
feels that it could no longer rely on regional
countries to do so.
Finally, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is very
much corporate oriented. Apart from the billions of
dollars that American private contractors are
collecting for their missions in post-war Iraq,
American oil companies, traditional bankrollers of US
politicians, also stand to gain tens of billions of
dollars from the Iraqi oil industry. Any move by the
Bush administration or its possible Kerry successor
to quit Iraq would be politically disasterous.
Quite simply, a departure from Iraq is not even
thinkable for the US. It would only pour in more
military firepower to overcome Iraqi resistance and
get more bogged down in the quagmire.

The overall picture

The crises in Palestine and Iraq would never be solved
without a dramatic volte-face in priorities, policy,
approach and strategies of the occupiers, Israel and
the US. However, such a shift is next to impossible.
Controlling Palestine in absolute terms is too crucial
for Israel to even consider accepting the Palestinian
rights to set up an independent state in the West Bank
just as maintaining its stranglehold on Iraq is
crucial to Washington's quest for global dominance,
politically, financially and militarily.
Both Israel and the US believe that the answer to
their respective problems is military force. They are
not willing to consider that freedom struggles could
not be put down through the barrel of guns and that
the occupier has to bow out at some point, sooner or
later.
They are ready to sacrifice whatever it
entails — casualties among their soldiers included —
to press for the realisation of their goals, which
means more and more military power being employed
against resistance, which could only gain strength and
intensity with every military blow from the occupier.
The net equation only means one thing: More and more
deaths and casualties on all sides, more so among the
Palestinians and Iraqis but enough on the Israeli and
American side to keep the situation boiling for the
foreseeable future.



in both cases and


THE Bush administration was caught unawares when the
scandal of prisoner abuse in Iraq blew up on its
face. It was already facing a worsening crisis, with
the majority Shiites showing their clout against
American designs in post-war Iraq, mounting casualties
among American forces deployed there and growing
international condemnation of its occupation of the
Arab Muslim country. However, there is no way out
since an Iraq under the American sphere of absolute
influence is the central pillar of the US strategy and
this means continued occupation of that country, ready
to taken on anything that challenges the American
strategic objectives. It is very similar to the
situation in Palestine, with Israel having no option
but to continue its occupation and suppression of the
Palestinian people since leaving the Palestinian
territories will question what people like Ariel
Sharon believe to be their raison d'etre.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is engaged in
a frantic exercise to cleanse its image in the wake of
the release of images depicting sadistic and
humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
However, the blemish will never be washed away and it
will go down in world history alongside the Nazi
practices and similar tales of gross disrespect for
human dignity and of cruelty against hapless human
beings overpowered through massive military force and
detained in conditions unfit even for the worst animal
on earth.
Indeed, Washington has announced court martial and
other proceedings against what it describes a
"handful" of American soldiers who were shown engaging
in abuses, torture and humiliation of Iraqis held in
its detention facilities in post-war Iraq. However,
more and more such images are emerging despite
Washington's efforts to suppress them. Worse still are
reports that American soldiers have been raping Iraqi
female prisoners detained on silly charges as refusing
to show identity cards at checkpoints. One account
says that at least two of the rape victims have gone
missing, presumably dead and buried somewhere in the
vast expanse of the Iraqi desert.
Adding to those are the emerging reports of abuses of
prisoners taken in the Afghan war and detained at the
Guantanamo Bay as well as prison camps within
Afghanistan.
Members of the US Congress who viewed fresh photos
and videos of Iraqi prisoner abuse on Wednesday
affirmed that they saw photos of sexual intercourse.
Others showed military dogs snarling at cowering
prisoners, as well as shots of Iraqi women commanded
to expose their breasts, they senators said.

'Congressional responsibility'

Comments by some of the senators, as could be
expected, contained scathing criticism of the
administration. But can they escape the blame, asks
Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who was
the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president.
He says: "Members of Congress decry the fact that the
administration did not inform us of these abuses and
purposely kept Congress out of the information loop.
Yet Congress made it clear to the administration from
the very beginning that it wanted no responsibility
for the war in Iraq.
"If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should
have vigorously exercised its responsibilities. This
means, first and foremost, that Congress should have
voted on a declaration of war as required by the
Constitution.
"Congress, after abandoning this responsibility in
October 2002, now complains it is in the dark. Who is
to say the legal ambiguity created by the
congressional refusal to declare war may not have
contributed to the mentality that prisoners need not
be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention?
Until Congress takes up its constitutional
responsibilities, complaints that the administration
is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring
hollow.
"Congress has the power – and the obligation – to keep
itself better informed. Congress should hold hearings
on the torture allegations, exercising its subpoena
power if necessary. Demanding that the administration
investigate the matter is simply another example of
Congress passing the buck. That's what got us into
trouble in the first place."



Major General Antonio Taguba, who carried out first
investigations into the abuse after an American
soldier blew the whistle on what was going on in Abu
Ghraib, says that the mistreatment resulted from
faulty leadership, a "lack of discipline, no training
whatsoever and no supervision" of the troops.
The photos and videos available with the Pentagon show
American soldiers "having sex with a female Iraqi
prisoner," according to the New Yorker magazine.
The secret report prepared by Taguba says that US
guards videotaped and photographed naked female
prisoners and that "a male MP [military police] guard"
is shown "having sex with a female detainee."
These treatments are now classified as, if you will,
as part of preparing the detainees for interrogation
by subjecting them to stress and humiliation.
London's Guardian newsapaper quoted Huda Shaker, a
political scientist at Baghdad University, as saying
that American soldiers used sexually explicit abuse at
her when she refused to allow them to search her
handbag at a checkpoint.
That is only the lightest of the experience of others,
she told the paper adding that several women held in
Abu Ghraib jail were sexually abused, including one
who was raped by an American military policeman and
became pregnant and who has now disappeared.
According to Shaker, several Iraqi women taken to Abu
Gharib for questioning and freed after weeks of
detention are unwilling to discuss their experience,
indicating that they were sexually abused.
Rumsfeld has defended military interrogation
techniques, rejecting complaints that they violate
international rules and may endanger Americans taken
prisoner.
He says that Pentagon lawyers had approved methods
such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well
as rules permitting guards to make prisoners assume
stressful positions.
The Arab media were implictly criticised for playing
down the images that appeared on a website which
showed an American being beheaded by masked militants
who said they were avenging the abuse at the Abu
Ghraib prison.
Well, let us put the criticism in perspective. Some
of the reports critical of the Arab media treatment of
the video-taped "execution" suggested that the Arabs
could even be jubilant that an American was killed in
revenge for the abuse at Abu Gharib.
Indeed, that assertion might indeed be true. But it
needs an explanation that those who might have thought
it was befiting that an American was killed come from
a background of untold misery caused by direct
American action (in Iraq) or indirect American action
(in Palestine). For them, it is the US-Israeli
alliance that is behind the troubles of the Middle
East and Israel's denial of Arab and Palestinian
rights.
For the Arabs and a majority in the international
community, there is no question whether the top
echelons of the US government and military knew of the
abuses in Iraq. They see as hoodwinking the repeated
affirmations and declarations, including those by
President George W Bush, Defence Secretary Ronald
Rumsfled and Secretary of State Colin Powell, that the
American political and military leadership was not
aware of what was going on in the Iraqi prisons.
As far as they are concerned, everyone on Washington
was aware what was going on and kept it concealed
until they had no choice when confronted by
irrefutable evidence of the abuses. And now they are
trying to save their own skin by blaming the abuses on
a few and putting up a public relations exercise
through the court martials and other proceedings.
Nothing more, nothing less.
No apologies, no excuses, no regrets and no other
exercise will convince the world majority otherwise.
It is not because they believe it is in American blood
to be sadistic and inhuman while dealing with
prisoners. It is not because they think Bush or
Rumsfeld gave direct orders to their soldiers to abuse
the prisoners.
It is because of the backdrop to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq and the obvious American bias
against the Arabs and close alliance with Israel,
which is flouting every international convention and
law and UN resolutions, continuing to occupy Arab
territories and waging a brutal war against the
Palestinians under its occupation.
Indeed, the invasion and occupation of Kuwait is seen
as an "Israeli project" as much as an "American
project" since it removed a potential Arab military
threat against the Jewish state as much as it allowed
the US to set up an advanced military base in the
Gulf.
The all-too-powerful umbrella of protection that the
US is offering Israel and Washington's almost-blanket
endorsement of every Israeli action and decision have
made it clear to the Arabs that they could not expect
fairness and justice in any effort to solve the
Arab-Israeli conflict. It is as if the US and Israel
are working together to oppress the Arabs and dominate
the Arab World, and, in the bargain, both treat the
Arabs as worthless beings who need to be given any
human consideration.
Reports have also come out that an Israeli team of
former security officials is training the American
military in Iraq on how to deal with the Iraqis along
the same lines as the Israeli military deals with the
Palestinians.
As evident from some of the images from Abu Gharib,
the US has indeed borrowed many of Israel's
"techniques," including hooding of prisoners,
depriving prisoners of sleep, humiliating them and
subjecting them to gross abuses.
The report of the treatment given to a 23-year old
Palestinian held on "administrative detention" by the
Israelis is most telling.
The prisoner was "cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day
for 120 days . . . [(he) had his head covered with a
sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards
played loud music right next to his ears and
frequently taunted him with threats of physical and
sexual violence."
The Taguba report cites many similarities between
Israeli treatment of Palestinians and American
treatment of Iraqi prisoners, thus clearly
establishing an Israeli connection to the abuses in
Iraq.
The case of a person identified as John Israel is an
example. The name is said to be phoney and the man
did not have top security clearance, but was somehow
given unfettered access to every knook and corner of
Abu Ghraib.
Why did he not have top security clearance?
Under American regulations, interrogators of Iraqi
prisoners have to US citizens and should be given a
top security clearance.
That does not mean that people like Israel, or
whatever his true name is, could be turned away, as
the Taguba report states.
Taguba has said that non-US and non-Iraqi
interrogators were present at Abu Ghraib. The report
states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel,
third country nationals, and local contractors do not
appear to be properly supervised within the detention
facility at Abu Ghraib." Clearly, intelligence
priorities warranted sharp interrogation skills and
these in turn were acquired by US military personnel
from Israelis, the unbeaten experts in that trade.
Indeed, any perception of American actions in Iraq
could not be seen without the Israeli aura, and that
in itself is the strongest argument yet that the US
military and political leadership care little for the
human rights of the people of Iraq just as the Israeli
attitude towards the Palestinians and Arabs.
The developments in Palestine and Iraq are closely
linked. If the United States fails in its endeavours
to stabilise iraq, consolidate its grip on the country
and set up a regional military base there, with a
"US-friendly" regime in power, then Israel's plans to
swallow Palestinian land would also falter.
If the situation in Palestine turns worse, as it is
happening now with the latest round of killings, then
it would inflame the crisis in Iraq, with the
intensity of the Iraqi resistance against occupation
continuing to grow, pushing the US into adopting
further actions similar to those which occurred in
Germany during World War II.
The fundamentals on the ground are clear: There is no
way Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon retract from
his drive to deny the Palestinian people their rights
if only because that would undermine what he believes
to the rights of Israel in Palestine.
Similarly, it is unthinkable for US President George
Bush to even consider withdrawing American forces from
Iraq since it departure from the beleaguered country
would pull the rug under the feet of Washington's
drive to unchallengingly dominate the international
scene. Leaving unfinished business in Iraq also means
setting a breeding ground for militancy and adding
fuel to the already bitter anti-American sentiments
among Arabs and Muslims.
Against the impossibility of the US deciding to quit
Iraq and Sharon deciding to respect Palestinian rights
and giving up his grand designs for Palestine, the
situation in the Middle East would turn from worse to
worst (if that is possible at all, given that what
could be worse than what we are witnessing in
Palestine and Iraq today). Regional stability will be
two words alien to the Middle East, with the cycle of
violence getting completely out of control, with
neither Sharon or Bush — or the next occupant of the
White House — unable to apply any brakes.

Lockerbie - too many questions

by pv vivekanand


Most people in are now convinced that Libya was behind the 1998 PanAm bombing after Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi agreed to pay compensation and accepted responsibility for the blast. But many in the Arab World, and indeed the international community, continue to believe that was much more than met the eye in the episode. The answers to the very valid questions raised by the sceptics might never be answered.
THE LIBYAN agreement to pay £2.7 billion in compensation and implicit acceptance of responsibility for the 1998 bombing of an American airliner that killed 270 people might close the diplomatic file and rehabilitate Libya into the international circuit, but many questions remain unanswered.
Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's acceptance of responsibility and compensation payment was a prerequisite in ending the UN and US sanctions imposed against his country in 1990 when he refused to hand over two Libyans suspected of having carried out the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
However, this does not imply acceptance of guilt since without accepting responsibility and paying compensation, Libya would have remained under the sanctions and diplomatically isolated.
Libya, which has been suffering from the sanctions, need foreign investments and technology to develop its untapped oil reserves and therefore it was incumbent upon Qadhafi to end the sanctions through whatever means.
Now it is expected that at least four US oil companies would return to Libya and resume their operations and Libya would also be removed from a US list of countries supporting "terrorism."
That is too strategic a prize for Qadhafi to let go.
However, the file remains open without the question satisfactorily answered who was behind the bombing of the American airliner.
Even European experts and analysts have said that the trial of two Libyans in 1999 after Qadhafi handed them over to a special Scottish court set up in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands was flawed. The trial led to one of the Libyans sentenced to life in a Scottish prison and the other being cleared of all charges.
Notwithstanding the trial and last month's Libyan agreement to accept responsibility and pay damages, many argue that doubts remain open whether Libya was behind the bombing.
Several other theories remain as strong as the one that the PanAm blast was in revenge for a 1985 American bombing of the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Bengazhi that killed five people, including Qadhafi's adopted daughter of four years.
That bombing was ordered by the then president Ronald Reagan as punitive measure against Libya for having allegedly ordered a blast at a Berlin disco frequented by American servicemen. A woman died in that blast.
But the alleged Libyan connection to the Pan Am bombing is only one of the many theories that were raised at the very outset of investigations into the crash. These theories varyingly pointed the accusing fingers at Iran, Syria, Libya, the Lebanese drug underworld, and even the CIA and Eastern Europe.
Every theory appeared to be as strong as any, and a widely-held argument in the Middle East was Libya was the scapegoat in the case and the notorious Israeli secret service, Mossad, helped fabricate the case against Tripoli.
Indeed, the initial investigation into to the PanAm blast brought out those theories. These include:
-- The bombing was Iranian revenge for the downing of an Iranian passenger airline in the Gulf by an American warship at the height of the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-80s.
-- The blast was the work of fearful Central Intelligence Agents (CIA) involved in illegal activities or masterminded by anti-American elements who penetrated a CIA-endorsed drug running operation;
-- The blast had nothing to do with the Middle East or Libya since the target of the bombing was two Eastern European politicians.
Surprisingly, the US investigators shut off all other investigations and focused on Libya instead without explaining why others were eliminated as suspects.
It is believed that Iran was conveniently removed as a potential suspect because taking on Tehran would have been too heavy for the US at that point. Washington was also seeking to pacify the Iranians after having extended support to Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
Syria, which supported the US in the 1991 war that ended Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, was off the hook since Washington needed Damascus to enter the Middle East peace process launched in late 1991.
All other non-Libya theories about the bombing would have dented what the US saw as an opportunity to have a stranglehold on Qadhafi's Libya, one of the most vociferous critics of US policy in Africa and the Middle East.
A careful scrutiny of the trial held at Camp Zeist indicated major loopholes in the prosecution case and it was surprising that the court found it fit to approve the evidence.
The key piece of evidence introduced during the Camp Zeist trial was a tiny piece of a timer that allegedly helped detonate explosives in the suitcase aboard Pan Am Flight 103. The timer was rigged into a Toshiba cassette player and the fragment was found in part of the wreckage of the airliner in Lockerbie.
That timer, according to the prosecutor, was manufactured and supplied to Libya by a small electronics company called MEBO based in Zurich, Switzerland.
But a company official told the court that similar timers were supplied to several parties, including the Stasi secret service of former East Germany.
Experts have questioned how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reached the conclusion that the fragment came from the MEBO timers supplied to Libya because of some fundamental differences in the construction of the devices bought by Libya and those sold by MEBO to others.
Also challenged in court was the record of misguided conclusions and lack of scientific qualifications of an FBI operative who "established" the alleged link between the timer and Libya.
Edwin Bollier, head of MEBO, said that the fragment could have come from one of two timers he had sold to Stasi. He also reported the theft of blueprints for the timer from his office and affirms that whoever had those blueprints could have manufactured a similar timer.
The Stasi connection opened up another avenue.
A Syrian-based group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), which was among the first suspects named by US authorities in the case but dropped eventually despite other circumstantial evidence, did have close links with the Stasi and could have obtained the MEBO timer from the East Germans.
Also challenged was the testimony of a former Libyan intelligence that he had seen the two Libyans who were put on trial in Camp Zeist at Malta airport on the day of the explosion.
The testimony was challenged on grounds that he has a vested interest in lying because he was living under a witness protection program in the US and stood to be rewarded by up to $4 million from the US government.
Initial reports citing US intelligence sources said the PFLP-GC could have carried out the bombing on behalf of Iran, which was seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian plane with 290 passengers aboard by an American warship, USS Vinceness, in the Gulf at the height of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
PFLP-GC leader Ahmed Jibril, a Syrian colonel, was named as having personally undertaken the alleged "contract" to bomb an American passenger plane in Europe several months before the Pan Am attack.
Reports spoke of warnings emanating from Finland and several other European countries, months before the Pan Am explosion, of an impending attack of similar nature.
Figuring high in the reports was a German police raid of a Frankfurt apartment where several men said to have been PFLP-GC members were staying. The raid yielded several weapons, and, most significantly, a Toshiba radio cassette player rigged with a bomb similar to the one that blasted Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
The Palestinians detained during the raid were freed shortly thereafter.
The prosecution was not seen to have proved conclusively that the suitcase containing the bomb was indeed loaded to an Air Malta plane at Valetta airport which was automatically moved to London's Heathrow from Frankfurt because it had a "through to New York" baggage tag. As long as that was not proved, the Libyan connection should have been dropped altogether.
A key the PFLP—GC activist was present in Malta at the time of the purchase of the clothes used to wrap the Pan Am bomb and the shopkeeper's description of the buyer was seen as another strong nail in the prosecution's case.
If there was enough ground to warrant an investigation whether PFLP-GC — and by implication Syria and Iran — were involved in the blast, why did the US move away from that direction?
Explanations a theory that the US wanted to "neutralize" Iran in the crisis triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and "secure Syrian support" for the US-led coalition against Iraq. It meant excluding the two countries from the investigations.
Other theories raised in connection with the bombing involved a covert CIA operation involving drug lords in Lebanon whose help the US wanted in order to secure the release of American hostages in that country. This involved allowing drugs to allowed aboard US-bound airplanes without inspection — something the CIA could do with its connections in Europe, said one theory, which was partially supported by the findings of an investigation carried by a private agency hired by Pan Am.
According to the theory, the CIA believed the suspect suitcase contained drugs linked to the Lebanon undercover operation and allowed its passage through Frankfurt onto the Pan Am flight. Somewhere along the line, someone switched the suitcase with one containing the bomb. It could have been the PFLP-GC or another group with links to the drug lords and this group might have been seeking to eliminate the CIA station chief in Beirut, Charles McKee, who was aboard the same flight.
Closely linked to this theory is another which says that CIA agents knew that the suitcase contained explosives and that McKee was the target but they allowed the blast to take place since the CIA station chief was headed for home with a complaint against them that could have led not only to their dismissal from service but prosecution in the US.
"The inference was obvious - Pan Am 103 was sacrificed by the intelligence community to get rid of Major McKee," according to a detailed report carried by the British Guardian newspaper after extensive investigations.
A local farmer from Lockerbie, where the exploded pieces of the plane landed, had reported finding a suitcase containing cellophane packets containing white powder among the debris in his fields, but the suitcase was taken away and no explanation was given. It was also discovered that the name the farmer saw on the suitcase did not correspond with any of the names on the passenger list of the crashed plane.
"There have been many ambiguities in the case from the very beginning, and they have not been cleared by the trial...," says James Weatherby, a British lawyer.
Weatherby cited the "many suggestions and reports indicating other groups or government(s) had the motive to carry out the attack and could have been behind those who planted the bomb" as one of the reasons for scepticism.
"The prosecution swept off all that under the carpet and zeroed in on Libya," he said.
The Libyan who was sentenced after the one-year trial appealed the verdict after fresh evidence emerged that the rigged suitcase could have been planted by those who broke into a Heathrow cargo bay.
The defence lawyers produced two witnesses, a security guard and his supervisor who were on duty at that time, who testified in court that there was a break-in at the cargo bay some 16 hours before the flight took off, that those who broken in had access to genuine Pan Am baggage tags and could have stashed the suitcase among the baggage lined up to be placed aboard Pan Am 103.
Every theory is feasible and every piece of evidence is as strong as the other.
As a British expert put it, the trial was a "process intended for public consumption was played out frontstage while thick curtains sealed off real drama for no one to see."
And indeed, the world might never be convicingly told who blasted Flight 103 out of the skies.

Libya's dramatic turnabout

LIBYA, once branded an international pariah by the US, is off the American and Western hook, not simply for now but for the foreseeable future since Tripoli's newfound relationship with Washington does not seem to be tactical but a key objective of a dramatic shift in policy, writes PV Vivekanand.
By agreeing to scrap the country's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and then opening up all WMD facilities without reservation to American and British inspectors, Libyan leader Muammar Abu Minyar Al Qadhafi launched the final steaps of a process that brought his country in from the cold into the international scene.
By no means the WMD gesture on its own helped Libya. Since 1999, it had followed a series of steps, beginning with the surrender of two Libyan suspects for trial on charges of engineering the 1988 bombing of an American airliner over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland and agreeing to pay compensaton to the victims of the blast after one of the suspects was found guilty and given a life sentence to be served in a Scottish prison.
The US has now announced that it is easing the sweeping sanctions it imposed on Libya in 1986 and again in 1996. It clears the way for US imports of Libyan oil as well as for American oil companies to invest money as well as technology in the country.
Oil experts say Libyan production is now only half of what it was in its peak year of 1970 when it reached 3.3 million barrels a day.
Libya had been denied American oil technology and spare parts for the oil industry since the day the sanctions were imposed.
Many countries scaled down diplomatic relations with Libya. The country's civil aviation sector was closed for external flights.
The 1996 Libya sanctions law prohibited US companies from investing in Iran and Libya. Sanctions also could be applied under the law to foreign companies that made investments in either country in excess of $20 million. In 2001, the US Congress extended the law for an additional five years. In the eight years the law has been in effect, no foreign company has been sanctioned.
The UN suspended ts sanctions imposed on Libya following the surrender of the Libyan suspects in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, but the US maintained its sanctions not only until Tripoli came up with £2.7 billion in compensation for the
bombing victims but also until a deal was reached on the country's WMD.
In In February, the United States dropped its 23-year ban on travel to Libya by American citizens and permitted them to spend money in the country.
US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns visited Libya early this year.
Washington is expected to announce the resumption of diplomatic relations with Tripoli soon in a dramatic shift from the days when the US considered Libya among its top five enemies around the world.
Today, Libya is poised to join and perhaps even lead the list of American friends in North Africa.
Having announced his decision to take his country out of the Arab League, which he accuses of inefficiency and disorientation, Qadhafi has been projecting Libya as African rather than Arab and then as a country totally committed to peaceful and diplomatic means in dealing with international relations.
As Qadhafi reaffirmed during a visit to Brussels this week — his first visit to Europe in 15 years — Libya is calling on all countries to abandon their WMD programmes and embrace the path of dialogue to settle disputes.
That the US is extremely pleased with the course of events was evident in the words of White House spokesman Scott McClellan when he announced the easing of US sanctions against Libya.
"Through its actions, Libya has set a standard that we hope other nations will emulate in rejecting weapons of mass destruction and in working constructively with international organizations to halt the proliferation of the world's most dangerous systems," McClellan said. "Libyan actions since Dec. 19 have made our country and the world safer."
It was on Dec.19 last year that Libya announced it was abandoning its WMD programmes and opening up all its WMD facilities for international inspection.
With the sanctions removed, Libyan students are eligible to study in the United States, subject to school admission and Washington will drop its objection to Libya's attempts to enter the World Trade Organistion.
In the meantime, Libyan assets held in the United States or by US banks will remain frozen, but a lifting of the freeze could follow soon.
The easing of sanctions did not include reinstating direct air service between the US and Libya, but includes expanded diplomatic relations. Washington will establish a U.S. liaison office in Tripoli, pending congressional notification and Libya is expected to send diplomats to the US soon.
Libya remains on the the US State Department's list of countries that Washington sees as "sponsors of international terorrism."
A ban on US exports to Libya under the terrorism list prohibit the sale of so-called dual-use goods — items that could be used for military purposes — such as ammunition and some goods related to civil aviation.
McCellan appeared to allude to the possibility of removing Libya from the list when he said Tripoli had "taken significant steps eliminating weapons of mass destruction programs and longer range missiles, and has reiterated its pledge to halt all support for terrorism. "
"In the last two months, the government of Libya has removed virtually all elements of its declared nuclear weapons programme, signed the IAEA Additional Protocol, joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, destroyed all of its declared unfilled chemical munitions, secured its chemical agent pending destruction under international supervision, submitted a declaration of its chemical agents to the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, eliminated its Scud-C missile force, and undertaken to modify its Scud-B missiles," the White House said.
That is indeed impressive tribute to Qadhafi, who, since assuming power in 1969, had propagated a distinct political system of his own — the Third International Theory.

'No regrets'

He had tried to spread his theory in the region and elsewhere in the world, and Libya had been accused of links with most European extremist groups including Northern Ireland's Irish Republican Army, Germany's Bader-Meinhof and Italy's Red Brigades as well as various Palestinian and Arab groups in the Middle East.
Qadhafi has defended his actions, saying on Wednesday he "absolutely does not regret the past."
"We were in a phase of fighting for emancipation, liberation....
We were accused of being terrorists, but that is the price we had to pay," he told French radio while in Belgium "If that is terrorism, then we are proud to be terrorists because we helped the liberation of the (African) continent," he said.
"I absolutely do not regret the past," he said.
He also defended Libya's support for African nationalist "freedom fighters".
"We financed, trained, formed these freedom fighters (for national movements), and this is something we are proud of," he
said. "It was for Africa, it was because of Africa."
In a speech to Belgium's parliament, also on Wednesday, he described terrorism as "the result of the imbalance in the world at the moment" and suggested that so-called terrorists had no other course of action.
"The terrorist is one who is forced to defend himself to win back rights by brutal means, terrorist means, because there are no other means," he said.

Unexpected moves

American and European diplomats and observers have expressed surprise over Libya's drmatic shift in policy. They say that they were seeing Libya doing things that nobody expected it to do.
"We have been justifiably cautious about re-engaging," said American State Department official. "We are proceeding carefully. But we have seen Libya do things nobody expected them to do, and they did them with a rapidity that has left some ... breathless."
Washington is said pressing Libya to settle outstanding disputes with Germany over the 1986 bombing of a disco in Berlinthat killed two US servicemen and a Turkish woman, and wounded 229, including 79 Americans.
Another outstanding issue is a dispute over compensation for victims of the bombing of a French UTA airliner.
On Jan.8, 2004, Libya also signed a $170 million compensation deal with the families of 170 people killed in the UTA bombing in 1989 over the Niger desert. But the French are seen to be unhappy over the deal.
Victims were of 17 nationalities, but France, with 54 dead, had the heaviest casualties.
Yet another is a feud with Bulgaria sparked by Libyan charges that Bulgarian doctors and nurses were responsible for infecting Libyan children in a hospital with HIV. The doctors are nurses are in detention but no verdict has been pronounced.
Within the region, Libya's dormant disputes include its claim of more than 32,000 square kilometres in southeastern Algeria and about 25,000 square kilometres in Niger.

Diplomatic boost

Following on the US footsteps, US President George Bush's staunchest transatlantic ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, gave a major boost to Libya's efforts to return to the international scene.
In March, Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Tripoli since Winston Churchill during World War II.
During the visit Blair lavished praise on Qadhafi for dismantling Libya's chemical, nuclear and biological programmes and said Europe was ready to do business with the country.
On a bilateral level, British police officers have travelled to Libya to continue investigations into the murder of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in 1984. Police said then the shot that killed her came from inside the mission and after the recent visit to Libya they said they had identified the culprit. It is not known whether the man would be put on trial in the UK.
Some international experts believe Libya might be able to provide vital clues to militant groups in view of its past connections, but others are not so sure. The dissenters say Libya did not have anything to do with militant groups in the last decade or so and, as such, the information it might possess would be outdated.
In Brussels on Wednesday, Muammar Qadhafi announced that French President Jacques Chirac would visit Libya in June, adding that no firm date had yet been set.
Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanim visited Paris last week and was received by Chirac.

'Safe for investment'

Parallel to diplomatic moves, Libya has also secured for itself a distinction equal to Scandinavia and much of Eastern Europe as being relatively safe from terrorism, organised crime and political violence.
This means that Libya is now seen as among the safest places to do business.
Among the oil companies expected to move into Libya are Marathon, ConocoPhillips, Amerada Hess and Occidental. All these firms have assets in Libya but have been barred by the US government from operating there since 1986.
International insurance brokerage Aon has given an excellent rating for Libya as an investment destination.
Says Martin Stone, Aon's director of counterterrorism and political risk:
"It's an exceptional situation where there are no indigenous terror groups and a highly controlled population, just as Iraq was until Saddam Hussein was kicked out. "Western interests in Libya are almost exclusively in the energy sector, which the Libyan government has a strong interest in protecting. That means there are few attractive targets for terrorists and easier countries for them to operate in.
Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell has signed a deal worth up to $1 billion for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast.
British defence contractor BAE Systems is in talks with the Libyans over aviation projects.
Experts believe that Libya has to implement major reforms to streamline itself in the international econcomy scene.
According to the Western experts, socialist-oriented economy depends primarily upon revenues from the oil sector, which contribute practically all export earnings and about one-quarter of GDP.
These oil revenues and a small population give Libya one of the highest per capita GDPs in Africa, but little of this income flows down to the lower orders of society. Import restrictions and inefficient resource allocations have led to periodic shortages of basic goods and foodstuffs. The nonoil manufacturing and construction sectors, which account for about 20 per cent of GDP, have expanded from processing mostly agricultural products to include the production of petrochemicals, iron, steel, and aluminum. Climatic conditions and poor soils severely limit agricultural output, and Libya imports about 75 per cent of its food.
Higher oil prices in the last three years led to an increase in export revenues, which has improved macroeconomic balances but has done little to stimulate broad-based economic growth. Libya is making slow progress toward economic liberalisation and the upgrading of economic infrastructure, but truly market-based reforms will be slow in coming, say the experts.

Pro-American course

On the political front, Libya could be expected to follow a pro-American course. that signal came to be cemented in reports, albeit unconfirmed, that Libya would allow Israeli chess players to participate in this summer's world championships to be held in Libya. If true, it would be the strongest signal yet that Libya is too happy to set itself on a course designed in Washington in relations with Israel.
The Israeli Chess Association said World Chess Federation (FIDE) officials met this week with Qadhafi's son Mohammed and it was agreed that the World Chess Championships from June 18 to July 13 in Tripoli "will be open to all."
Mohammed Gadhafi, who heads the Libyan Olympic Committee, gave the undertaking in a a letter to Israel that ended intense behind-the-scenes negotiations over entry visas for players from counties without diplomatic relations with Libya, the association claimed.
As a result of Mohammed Qadhafi's letter, FIDE issued a statement saying that Libya had guaranteed entry visas and "consequently, all the games of the championship will be played in Tripoli, Libya and no parallel event will be organised in Malta."
There was no immediate confirmation by Libya of the Israeli claim.

Caution to the West

While offering lucrative business deals and an olive branch to Europeans during his visit to Belgium, Qadhafi also implicitly warned of the "days of explosive belts" if provoked by "evil" from the West.
Addressing Belgian business leaders and Belgian parliament members, Qadhafi argued against a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and said Europe should "should not be on the sidelines" in the peace process.
"It's important that Europe raises its voice about the tragedy in Iraq," he added later.
He criticised the decision by the US-led coalition to invade Iraq despite massive street protests in many countries as evidence of the failings of Western-style democracy.
"The American people and the English people were against the aggression in Iraq," he said through an interpreter.
"So in that case, the representation was false," he said, adding "representation is falsification."

With input from wire agencies

Sharon playing a deadly game

April 22 2004
PV Vivekanand

LET us make no mistake about it. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is poised to implement a long-term grand plan aimed at turning all the territory between the "sea" — the Mediterranean — and the "river" — Jordan — into an exclusively Jewish entity. His unilateral "disengagement" plan is the first step towards that objective — notwithstanding the 750-kilometre "separation" wall in the West Bank that many see as Sharon's definition of the border between a would-be Palestinian state and Israel. Effectively, the plan would turn the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into a large prison camp holding more than 3.5 million people who would remain under intense Israeli-induced suffering aimed at pressuring them into leaving their land.

IN A SPAN OF less than a month, Sharon dramatically changed the Middle Eastern equation. By floating and successfully securing American endorsement of his unilateral "disengagement" plan with the Palestinians he has unveiled his the beginning of his version of a solution to the Palestinian problem. By ordering and ensuring tacit American endorsement of the assassination of senior Palestinian resistance leaders, he showed that he could not care less for what the international community thought about his policy of "targeted killings" that serve his drive to impose his unilateral plans on the Palestinians.
By securing Washington's acceptance of Israel's refusal to respect the right of return of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to their ancestral land, Sharon has also declared that, as far as the US and Israel are concerned, the refugee problem has ceased to exist, whether the Palestinians, the UN or anyone else in the world agreed with it.
Sharon's plan to end the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and remove Jewish settlers from the Mediterranean coastal strip is borne out of an Israeli need — rather than a desire to meet any Palestinian demand. The Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world and a hotbed of Palestinian resistance, was always too hot for Israel to handle.
Continuing to militarily occupy a chunk of the strip in order to offer "security" to the Jewish settlers there has always proved to be too costly for Israel. Therefore, getting out of Gaza should not been as a magnanimous Israeli gesture. It is nothing but cutting and running away from a problem that also implies getting rid of about 1.2 million Palestinians whose long-term presence under Israeli control would only gnaw away at the Jewish identity of Israel.
Obviously, deciding to withdraw from the Gaza Strip without negotiating a smooth transition negotiated with the mainstream Palestinian leadership under Yasser Arafat, Sharon is leaving the door open for post-withdrawal chaos to prevail there pitting Palestinian groups vying for each other for control of the territory.
However, withdrawing the army and relocating the settlers does not mean any dilution of the overall Israeli control of the Gaza Strip.
As the translated version of his plan has highlighted, Israel will maintain its stranglehold on the strip. It will have control over all accesses into and out of Gaza, meaning that it could impose a crippling blockade on the flow of food and water, labour movement, trade and everything essential for the people there to survive, particularly that the strip will not have any sea or airport.
The Israeli army will be able to stage any operation against the residents of Gaza like fish in a living room bowl; and so will be the status of West Bankers.

New 'realities'?

It is the next phase of Sharon's plan — and clearly mentioned in a letter of endorsement given to the Israeli prime minister by US President George W Bush — have really changed the equation on the ground. It involves relocating the evacuated Gaza settlers by expanding existing settlements and building new colonies in the occupied West Bank. Effectively, he is giving up housing for 7,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza in return for consolidating West Bank settlements, where 250,000 Jewish settlers live.
Indeed, the plan calls for dismantling four settlements in the West Bank, but that move is seen as rather cosmetic.
As Uri Avnery, a noted Israeli pacifist and analyst, puts it: "The Americans demand a symbolic gesture in order to show that the plan does not apply to the Gaza Strip alone.
"Actually, the evacuation of the four small settlements has only symbolic value. This is a negligible area with a few small and unimportant settlements. Sharon's settlement and annexation map in any case provides for the evacuation of dozens of small settlements in the areas that will be left to the Palestinians."
Indeed, Bush in his letter of endorsement given to Sharon clearly acknowledged that Israel would not give up its absolute control of all entry and exit points to the West Bank and the same conditions as the Gaza Strip would apply.


'Separation wall'

The so-called "security" or "separation" wall/fence that Sharon is building in the West Bank, is only a tool to help his plans. In the short term, when completed, it would be a barrier against Palestinian resistance attacks and will encompass all areas which Israel considers as vital to its "strategic interests" at this point in time. Israel would be able to remove it as and when the elements have been turned into its favour and when it could claim all the land of Palestine as a Jewish state.
As Avnery phrases it, since "an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the West Bank) is not feasible for the time being," Sharon "is implementing his minimum plan: to enlarge the borders of the Jewish state as much as possible, without incorporating a further large Arab population."
The "minimum" plan another clincher that has to do with "ethnic cleansing" although very subtle.
Sharon wants the Palestinians — at some point — to agree to a "population" swap: Arab Israeli towns in return for further West Bank land. Effectively, it would serve several purposes for Sharon. He could further reduce the number of Arabs who opted to stay on in their land in 1948 and accept Israeli citizenship and also strengthen the presence of Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
Sharon's mistrust of Arab Israelis is well known although he had sought their votes in elections. His approach to Arab Israelis should be seen against the 1980s and early 90s backdrop that he had been one of the ardent advocates of expelling all Arabs not only from the West Bank but also from the areas that became Israel in 1948.

Right of return

The American endorsement of Israel's refusal to respect the right of return of refugees has shocked many. But, a fine print reading would show that need not be a jolt at all.
Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, said in a Jan.8, 2001, speech — notably the last while he was in office — set the ground for the American position on the issue. He said, as Avnery recalls, "A solution...for the Palestinian refugees (will allow) them to return to a Palestinian state... Others who want to find new homes, whether in their current locations or in third countries, should be able to do so, consistent with those countries' sovereign decisions. And that includes Israel."
In Avnery's interpretation, this means that "only Israel alone will decide whether refugees will be allowed to enter its territory - and that is what Bush said, too."
The noted Israeli peace activist notes that "contrary to the official translation of his letter into Hebrew, Bush said that the refugees must be settled in the Palestinian state "rather than in Israel." The Hebrew translation said "and not in Israel"," he points out, adding "a subtle but not unimportant difference."
Palestinian refugees are defined as those who resided in Palestine two years prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1948 and who lost their homes and livelihoods as a result of that war.
The Palestinian position on the refugees is based on UN Resolution 194 of 1948, which draws from the international law that states that refugees have the right to return to their homes of origin, receive real property restitution, and compensation for losses and damages.
UN Resolution 194 provides only two solutions: repatriation for those refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbours or compensation for those choosing not to return.
The General Assembly adopted Resolution 3236 in 1974, making the right of return an "inalienable" right.
In practical terms, according to surveys conducted in Palestinian refugee camps, the first generation of Palestinian refugees is fast disappearing and not many in the second generation wish to go back to their ancestral land which most of them could not even remember.
While there is no accurate data, a majority of the refugees are likely to opt for real property restitution, and compensation for losses and damages in lieu of their right to return, UN officials say.
In any event, they are far from any stage where they could exercise that option since Israel has steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge Resolution 194.
The majority of Palestinian refugees live in Arab countries neighbouring Israel and the occupied territories.
More than half the refugee population lives in Jordan. Approximately 37.7 per cent live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, comprising about 50 per cent of the population in the occupied territories; 15% per cent live in almost equal numbers in Syria and Lebanon; about 260,000 internally displaced Palestinians reside in Israel. The remaining refugee population lives throughout the world, including the rest of the Arab World (from the Gulf States to Egypt). Of the 3.8 million refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 33 per cent live inside UNRWA's 59 refugee camps throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (source: Al Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition).
The Israeli argument against the right of return had been based on three points: there is no space in Israel for the refugees to return, that the return of Palestinian refugees would threaten security and lead to conflict, and finally, that the return of the refugees would jeopardise the Jewish nature of the state.
Al Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, rejects the argument. It says: "With regards to the first argument recent research shows that 78 per cent of the Jewish population of Israel resides on 15 per cent of the land. The areas where Palestinian villages were demolished lie mainly uninhabited. At the same time, all Jews worldwide are encouraged to immigrate to Israel based on the Israeli 'law of return.'
"As for security concerns, Palestinian refugees broadly accept that exercising their right to return would not be based on the eviction of Jewish citizens but on the principles of equality and human rights.
"The final argument though is a testament to Israel's false claim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a Jewish democracy, and this oxymoron should not be confused with real democracy."
No end to killings

Only disappointment greeted those who might have thought that Bush's endorsement of the "disengagement" plan meant an end of Israel's policy of "target killings" and the beginning of preparations for an Israeli evacuation of the Gaza Strip. One of the first things that Sharon ordered prior to after his return from Washington last week was the killing of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (in late March) and of his successor Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi.
While assassinating noted Palestinian resistance leaders is in no way new to Israeli policy — scores have been "eliminated" in various countries the last three decades —  the killing of Yassin marked a definite turn to the worse. Sharon could not have been unaware of the fury it would spark among the Palestinians and dangers such fury would bring about —  plus of course international condemnation. It was all the more jolting that Sharon followed it up with assassination threats against Arafat and Lebanon's Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and then ordered the Rantisi killing.
Obviously, Sharon, boosted by the American approval of his "disengagement" plans and assured by the track record that Washington would not censure it for killing Palestinians and also offer protection against UN punitive action, no longer feels any reason to exercise any restraint in his drive to "condition" the Palestinians into accepting his terms.
He has declared that he would continue to chase and kill every Palestinian resistance leader worth the name.
That is indeed a most dangerous development. Every Israeli killing of a resistance leader, whether from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fateh or any other group, only serves to fuel Palestinian despair and frustration into undertaking suicide missions and more daring attacks against Israelis.
The Palestinian mindset was clearly spelt out by Rantisi himself in an interview a few days before his death.
"I am not afraid," he said. "I want to be a martyr and will die, not at the hands of Sharon, but when Allah wants it.
"I would prefer to die a martyr rather than of cancer or heart arrest."
While the international community was almost unanimous in condemning the Israeli policy of killing as illegal and counter-productive to any prospects for a negotiated settlement of the Palestinian problem, the US was an exception. Washington refused to criticise Israel and instead affirmed what it said was Israel's a right to defend itself.
Obviously fearing further killings, Hamas has named a successor to Rantisi, but his identity is a closely guarded secret, but it is largely easy to guess, given the prominence of some of its activists as committed and dedicated resistance leaders.
Hamas revenge for the death of its leaders could come anytime, and observers, including Israeli commentators, have said that it could be too intense and devastating. If it has not come until now, it is only because of the unprecedented security measures that Israel has adopted.


Palestinian rejection

In response to the Sharon plant, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has vowed that Palestinians will never give up their quest for an independent state and the right return of refugees.
Arafat also warned that there can be no security for Israel as long as the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands continues.
"The Palestinian people will never give up the goal of achieving freedom and independence and a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," said Arafat.
He noted that while Israel has killed Palestinian leaders over the decades, it has failed to stop the Palestinian people.
"Yes, my brothers and sisters, our fate is to defend our land, our holy shines, defend Jerusalem and the right to live in freedom and national independence and the right of refugees to return to their lands. ...
"Israeli crimes will be faced with more resistance to force Israeli occupiers and herds of settlers to leave Palestinian land," Arafat said. "Israel will not achieve security through occupation, arrogance and assassinating our leaders."
Fears are high in Palestinian circles that there could be confrontation between forces loyal to Arafat and those who back groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to take control of Gaza as, when and indeed if the Israeli withdraw from the strip.
Intense discussions are under way among the various Palestinian faction to find a formula for shared authority in the Gaza Strip. However, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, aware that they have gained additional support in recent weeks, are holding out for a lion's share of power and influence.



'Roadmap' rolled up


On the diplomatic front, Sharon's "disengagement" has effectively killed any chance for the revival of the "roadmap" for peace backed by the Quartet — the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia.
However, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair appear to believe that the Sharon plan offers a "fantastic" opportunity for the Palestinians to negotiate peace with Israel.
It is an irony. Bush's endorsement of the Sharon plan has closed the door on two key Palestinian demands — the right of return of refugees and dismantling of all West Bank settlements; add to that the reality that Israel had been insisting on changing some of the key stipulations in the "roadmap" as conditions for its acceptance of the blueprint.
Effectively, that leaves nothing for the Palestinians to "negotiate" with Israel except the "technicalities" of how they should carry out the "civil administration" of the territory under their control on the eastern side of the "security wall" that cuts across the West Bank.
No doubt, it was fears of a wider Muslim and Christian backlash that prevented Bush from publicly endorsing Israel's "right" to the whole of Jerusalem, including the eastern part of the Holy City that it seized in the 1967 war.
While Washington's publicly stated position that the fate of Jerusalem should be negotiated between the Palestinians and Israel, it is widely held in the Arab and Muslim world that the US is only waiting for the right opportunity to announce its support for the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as its "indivisible and eternal capital."
The US-British assertion that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should continue has an implicit rider — the Palestinians should forget about ever demanding the right of return of refugees and removal of West Bank settlements.
In the hypothesis that is indeed is the way the Palestinians would opt, then the net shape of the West Bank under their nominal control would resemble South Africa's apartheid-era Buntustans — large population centres cut off from each other by access roads under the absolute control of the Israeli army.
In Avnery's words:
"Almost all the Palestinian population in the West Bank, some 2.5 million people, will be crowded into the remaining 45 per cent of the area, which, together with the Gaza Strip, will constitute about 10 per cent of the country called Palestine under the British mandate, before 1948.
"This area will be a kind of archipelago in the big Israeli sea. Each 'island' will be cut off from the others and surrounded by Israeli areas. The islands will be artificially connected by new roads, bridges and tunnels, so as to create the illusion of a 'viable, contiguous state,' as the Americans demand.
"According to the written plan: 'Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the Judea and Samaria region (Israeli-given name for the West Bank), in order to make possible uninterrupted Palestinian transportation.' In practice, these connections can be cut off within minutes at any time. Pretexts can always be found easily."

Why the Sharon plan?


Questions are being asked why Sharon opted to float his "disengagement" plan at this point in time.
Several theories are debates, and it would seem a combination of those theories could be the right interpretation.
These include:
Sharon is aware that Bush is finding himself in a difficult situation with regard to his prospects of re-election in November because internal and external factors (notably Iraq). Therefore, an Israeli "initiative" — notwithstanding its overwhelmingly negative points — to "settle" the Palestinian problem would never be rejected by a US president desperate for Jewish and pro-Zionist support in the polls. If anything, the president would only seek to turn around the "initiative" to his advantage and use it to highlight a dramatic turnaround in prospects for peace in Palestine.
At the same time, Sharon is also aware that he would be better off to grab whatever he could from Bush before the incumbent is possibly forced to pack up and leave the White House. No doubt, it might not be a major problem for Israel to pressure any occupant of the White House to see things the Israeli way, but why wait for a Bush successor to be installed —  if indeed that is how the vote turns out in November — and then convinced into publicly accepting and supporting the Israeli "initiative"?
On the internal front, Sharon could not but be aware that apart from the cycle of killings and Palestinian resistance war, nothing much had been happening in the last two years in any movement for peace, realistic or otherwise. He had to grab the initiative and hit the headlines and, in the bargain, gain a ground advance towards creating facts on the ground that would serve his quest for his own version of "peace" and also dump the so-called "Geneva initiative" worked out by his political rivals and Palestinian leaders.
Indeed, there are some who argue that Sharon is also seeking to shield himself from prosecution in a political scandal where he is accused of accepting illegal money for his election campaign.
By setting a target of end of 2005 for implementing the plan, Sharon seemed to be seeking to stall any move by the judiciary to charge him for corruption. After all, how could a prime minister who has come up with what is definitely the most dramatic "peace initiative" that serves Israel be sent to court to face corruption charges and thus undermine the prospect of the country gaining something historic?
Again, the shape of the Middle East could change dramatically in the next 20 months, given the upheavals in Iraq and other developments in the region, thus giving Sharon additional lifeline and time to save himself from being prosecuted.And finally, there is the argument that Sharon has not really cooked up anything new.
Sharon's Likud party, long an advocate of building settlements in the occupied territories, is to vote in a referendum on the plan on May 2.
Sharon has told the party that his plan will boost Israel's security by reducing friction with Palestinians, and Likud leaders are lining up behind it. He got a strong boost when his main rival within the party, former prime minister and current finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said he backed the plan.
According to Avnery, the "disengagement" plan "conforms exactly to the plan that Sharon has been propounding for decades. He just cut out a piece of it and is presenting it as an up-to-date plan. "
In fair terms, the implementation of the plan depends on how it suits Sharon's political and personal agenda.
Notwithstanding the timing, the reality today is that the president of the United States has said that it would support the annexation by the occupier of parts of the occupied territory.
One fails to see any provision whatsoever anywhere in the world that gives the United States the right to grant Palestinian territory to Israel. Obviously, that does not seem to have bothered Bush any, and, the Palestinian might get easily stuck with what the president has endorsed, given the geopolitical realities in a regional and global context.

Few options for Bush

Few options for Bush
April 16 2004
PV Vivekanand

US PRESIDENT George W Bush faces the most crucial dilemma of his politcal career in handling the Iraq crisis. Notwithstanding the brave front he is putting up, he has no assurance that the US could win the war in Iraq. His options are limited and he has no exit strategy since such a course of events was never foreseen by his hardline camp which orchestrated the invasion and occupaton of Iraq. With mounting American casualties in Iraq and revelations of deception in Washington over the Sept.11 attacks and the war against Iraq, Bush's Democratic challenger John Kerry seems already halfway through to the White House in November.

Bush could not use the UN as a smokescreen to legitimise the US dominance of Iraq since the world body demands transparency and the final say in how to democratise Iraq in a manner acceptable to the international community. Giving in to the UN demand will mean nothing but giving up the American long-term objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Bush could pump in more military forces and seek to suppress Iraqi resistance but it would only inflame Iraqi passions and drag his military into a prolonged war of attrition that would undermine all hopes of a contained situation where Washington could pursue its "strategic" objectives in the Middle East.
If anything, brutal suppression of Iraqi resistance to the US-led occupation would pull the US deeper into the quagmire and ignite more anti-American sentiments not only in Iraq but elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Bush has acknowledged that the Iraq crisis has turned to be the decisive issue in his bid for re-election in November. However, he has rejected suggestions that Iraq is becoming another Vietnam but that he is ready to send more American soldiers to Iraq to put down Iraqi resistance to the US-led occupation of that country.
However, the crisis in Iraq is fast becoming an American battle to avert defeat rather than an effort to "civilise" and "democratise" Iraq as the Bush administration is claiming.
Bush has several options in Iraq — but none better or worse than the other.
What is at stake for Bush in Iraq is not only his re-election prospects but also the perceived American invincibility and admitting defeat there would seal his departure from active politics.
Bush has to deliver on his promise to set up a pro-Western, democratic Iraq. He could not afford to be forced into leaving Iraq since that would signal the end of America's newfound global dominance.
American commentators are asking whether Bush has any assurance that he would win the war. He might be able to fight off Iraqi querrillas but it is turning out to be a full-time job for his miltary and allies in Iraq. Without security, no elections could be held in Iraq, and without elections, there will be no democracy.
As former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan puts it:
"President Bush faces three options. He can continue to draw down troops and transfer power to the Iraq Governing Council on June 30, and risk a collapse in chaos or civil war. He can hold to present US force levels and accept a war of attrition of indefinite duration, a war on which his countrymen have begun to sour.
"Or he can send in more troops and unleash US power to crush all resistance, while declaring our resolve to "pay any price" and fight on to victory, even if it takes two, five or 10 years. The problem with playing Churchill is that, as in Vietnam, it is hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
"The incidence of attacks on our troops, aid workers and Iraqi allies is rising. The more fiercely we fight back, the higher the casualties we inflict on insurgent and civilian alike, and the greater the hostility grows to our war and our presence. "Indeed, if our occupation itself is the cause of the insurgency, how do we win the war by extending and deepening it?"

Uncompromising stand

The best reference to Bush's current uncompromising position that he had done the right thing before and after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks and the war against Afghanistan and Iraq came in a combination speech and news conference at the White House on Tuesday.
He did not even acknowledge that the crises in both Afghanistan and Iraq were serious and hence the question of offering new ideas to solve them did not arise at all.
Everything he said was a reiteration of known positions and a deliberate attempt at keeping the focus away from the key issues at stake and trying to reinforce the image that his administration did nothing wrong in any aspect.
Throughout the encounter with the press, Bush maintained that he was determined to "win" the war in Iraq and was confident that he would have presidential mandate renewed in November.
He faced tough questions from the media about whether he felt he had made "mistakes" in handling the terror threat to the US, perceived and otherwise, prior to and after Sept.11, whether he was right in handling Afghanistan the way he did and whether the coalition was wavering in the face of the crisis in Iraq.
Predictably, he offered no apology for the government's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks or find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq despite that it was the very reason that he cited as justification for the war that ousted Saddam Hussein and led to the US military occupation of that country.

Wobbling explanations

Some Americans might have bought some of his explanations, reaffirmations of known positions and assertions that his administration had adopted a straight-forward approach to everything. But, as commentators indicate, not many Americans were bought by his words since the facts on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere are different from the way he portrayed them.
For one thing, he insisted that the US was determined to bring democracy to Iraq and let Iraqis run their country from July 1.
What he did not say was that the "interim government" which will "take over" Iraq on June 30 will be handpicked by the US occupation authority and that government would have little power on its own except those granted by the US military.
The pointed refusal to touch upon this key aspect of the future of Iraq would not have been lost on anyone.
"America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals and required by our interests." he said. "Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror and a threat to America and to the world," he said.
No one bothered or was allowed to seek an explanation how Iraq was a threat to America.
Notable among them was his contention that the crisis in Iraq was the work of thugs and terrorists and rejection that Iraq was becoming another Vietnam — a quagmire without an easy exit.
"I think that analogy is false," he said. "I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy."
Declaring that he he was "proud" of the coalition of countries that had send troops to Iraq, he said he would seek for a new UN Security Council resolution "that will help other nations to decide to participate" in Iraq's reconconstruction. What he did not say was that such participation will be on American terms and not UN terms.
He contented that the war of resistance in Iraq was not a popular uprising. "The violence we've seen is a power grab by ... extreme and ruthless elements" from inside Iraq and from outside, according to Bush.
Asked whether he believes he has acted correctly even if it costs him his job, he replied quickly, "I don't intend to lose my job. Because I'm going to tell the American people I have a plan to win the war on terror."
"Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens," Bush said. "I don't. It's a tough time for the American people to see that. It's gut-wrenching."
Iraq figures in Bush's decline in public opinion polls in two areas that are critical for his re-election campaign. Approval of his handling of Iraq has declined to the mid-40 per cent level, and approval for his handling of terrorism has dipped into the mid-50s. Growing numbers of people say the military action in Iraq has increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism.

Questions of Sept.11

While Bush opened with remarks about Iraq at Tuesday's press conference, the questions were broader — focusing as well on the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Had I had any inkling whatsoever that people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to protect the country. Just like we're working to prevent further attacks," he said.
Asked whether he felt any responsibility for the attack, Bush said he grieved for the families of the victims and said in retrospect he wished, for example, the Homeland Security Department had been in place. Bush initially opposed creation of the agency but changed his mind under prodding from Congress.
He said said a highly publicised intelligence briefing he received on Aug. 6, 2001, contained "nothing new" in terms of disclosing that Osama Bin Laden hoped to attack the United States. He was heartened, he said, by the disclosure that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) was conducting numerous investigations.
But that claim was undercut earlier in the day at a televised hearing by the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. Former Acting FBI director Thomas Pickard testified that he did not know where the information about the FBI investigations came from, and one commission member, Slade Gorton, suggested many of the investigations related to fund raising, not the threat of attacks.

Kerry an alternative?

At least 83 US forces have been killed and more than 560 wounded this month, according to the US military, as American troops fight on three fronts: against Sunnis in Fallujah, Shiite militiamen in the south and guerrillas in Baghdad and on its outskirts. At least 678 US troops have died since the war began in March 2003.
Additionally, four American employees of a private security company working in Iraq were killed and their bodies mutilated two weeks ago, and Thomas Hamill, an employee of another firm, was seized as a hostage last week.
What are the chances of Bush's rival in the November elections, Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, reversing Bush's "policy of war" if he wins the race?
Well, Kerry has clearly said that he will continue the policy and there are many who see a vote for Kerry as a vote for war. Writing in the editorial pages of the Washington Post on Tuesday entitled, “A Strategy for Iraq," Kerry said that "no matter who is elected president in November... we will persevere” in Iraq.
"We need to set a new course in Iraq," Kerry wrote. "We need to internationalise the effort and put an end to the American occupation. We need to open up the reconstruction of Iraq to other countries. We need a real transfer of political power to the UN."
“While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed,” wrote Kerry. “The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of US troops."
What Kerry took for granted was that there is indeed a united American stand in favour of the war in Iraq. There is no such thing as American resolve for war; Americans are deeply divided over the wisdom of having gone to Iraq in the first place; many of them resent that Bush administration officials hoodwinked them into seeing the war on Iraq as protecting their security; many have realised that the war was an agenda of the neoconservatives around Bush; many have seen through the ruse that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had a role in the Sept.11 attacks; most have realised that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost and will continue to cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars; and
many have understood that certain groups and businesses close to the Bush administration are the beneficiaries of the billions spent in Iraq. Add to that the reality that as the American casualty figures continue to mount in Iraq, so does the voice of anti-war movements in the US.
Would that mean voters opting for Kerry in November? Most probably, for better or worse, the answer — at this juncture in time — seems to be yes.

With input from wire agencies

Media handling of Iraq

Matter of interests

by pv vivekanand

BRITON Garry Teeley or American Thomas Hamil or any of the dozens of foreigners captured as hostages in Iraq might have given a second thought to what they were doing when they went to post-war Iraq, whether on business or on military contracts or as servicemen committed to obey orders. Some of them might or might not released soon and could be used as bargaining chips by their captors, thus leading to long sagas of the ordeal of their families and friends back home and the embarassment and dilemma of their government that are now occupying large chunks of international agency reports.
It is indeed the routine followed by Western wire agencies, newspapers and other media outlets to focus on any Westerner whenever he or she is caught in a foreign situation of conflict, facing an uncertain fate, all the more so if the individual happens to be American or British as if Western lives are more precious than others.
A human life is a human life, whether American or Iraqi. But is that the rule that the Western media follow in Iraq?
We have been reports describing the four Americans killed in Falloujah last week as "civilian contractors." There was indeed a deliberate effort to suppress the truth that they were nothing but armed mercenaries who were paid top wages to protect convoys carrying supplies to the US military. They understood their job perfectly well; remove anything and anyone who stood between them and their job and that is why they were carrying guns. No doubt, if they were given a chance, they would have mercilessly slaughtered their Iraqi assailants and lived to tell the tale. It was their misfortune — or calculated risk, if you will — that they did not get a chance to open up with their guns and survive. Cest la vie.
Their bodies were mutilated, dragged through the streets of Fallouja and hung up on a bridge. What cruelty, cried the media. Washington was indignant. How could the Iraqis insult and humilate Americans, even if they are dead, screamed American officials. American pride was hit and damaged, said a few others. I have no dispute with any of their assertions. They are American and that is the way they are supposed to feel, speak and behave in such situations. Nor am I going into any debate over how the Iraqis should or should have behaved (it is not for me to tell them that they should respect the Geneva Conventions and treat American or allied soldiers and those who extend logistic support for them with the respect that military uniforms warrant in a situation of war — we don't even know whether the four were wearing military fatigues or civlian clothes). However, it might be an idea for some of the Western media personnel covering Iraq to present a better picture of the sentiments of the Iraqis today as to why the Fallouja incident in the first place and of the motivations of those Iraqis who dragged the American bodies through the streets.
What followed in the American media was also cest la vie — thousands of words about how the killed Americans were loved fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, how committed and skilled they were in their respective jobs etc.etc. Fair enough. Their families and towns need to know about them, remember them. That is the way American life is all about.
But how many of those newspapers, magazines and agencies cared to focus on how life is for an Iraqi today in Iraq?
With a few exceptions, what we read today is mostly dedicated to highlighting that the suffering of the people of Iraq under US military occupation is the result of either local militants fighting the Americans, "foreign terorrists" who have infiltrated into the country ready to do whatever it takes to make the point that they are fighting the Americans for the sake of fighting the Americans anywhere in the world (Iraq happens to be convenient since the US presence there offers some of the best targets of anti-American "terrorists.")
How many media outlets in the West have bothered to see things from the Iraqi, Arab and Middle Eastern perspective? How many of them could appreciate the frustration, despair and suffering of the people of Iraq? Or that the US military had no business ever to be in Iraq, regardless of Saddam Hussein? Or that if the Iraqis were to be "liberated" from Saddam then the most qualified to do so was the United Nations under a transparent mandate? Or that the American action in Iraq could never been seen in isolation from Washington's "strategic" relations with Israel, which is occupying Arab and Muslim land?
Even worse that their failure to understand the Iraqi situation from an Arab and Muslim perspective is their attempt to laugh off the connection between Iraq and Palestine. Some even implied that Israeli assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was exploited as a propaganda stunt by Moqtada Sadr in a bid to rally supporters. Those who make such assertions know very little or feign to know very little about the inseparability of the situations in Iraq and the overall Arab cause, whether in Palestine or elsewhere.
The people of Iraq do not have to do any research and figure out that their natural resources have had something to do with bringing the American military to rule their country, order them around and impose conditions that are not only alien to their culture, tradition and way of life but also aims at serving American and Israeli interests in the Middle East.
Very few reports in the Western press highlight that it is a war of resistance going on in Iraq. The US media have turned to be cheerleaders of the US military, portraying an image of the American occupation authorities as the legitimate government in Iraq and all those challenging them as bloodthirsty terrorists and militants. The latest coinage to describe them is "rebels" — a term that is by and large used to refer to people who are challenging the legitimacy of a government but definitely not indigeous people fighting a war of resistance against occupying forces.
Then there is perceived scenario of "civil war" in Iraq.
The world defines "civil war" as pitting two or more indigenous groups against each other but not a conflict between occupation forces and local resistance.
In Iraq's case, the term does not apply at all at whatever level as long as the Americans remain in the country since they are a foreign element in the equation and thus the conflict is not confined to Iraqis alone and makes it a civil war. Nor is it like the American military maintaining its presence there to separate warring Iraqi groups. It is very much a party to the entire conflict. The US military might be supported by some Iraqi groups, but those groups would collapse the moment Washington calls of the American military involvement in the country. So, who is going to fight whom in Iraq after a hypothetical American withdrawal? Loyalists of Moqtada Sar pitted against forces loyal to Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani or the so-called pro-Iranian groups in the south or the Sunnis or Kurds elsewhere? Or will it be the Kurds against Turkomen in the north? The Kurds against Sunnis in central Iraq? Or the groups that were in comfortable exile while the Iraqis suffered under Saddam taking on those who challenge their quest for dominance in the country? We don't know. But we do know that what is happening in Iraq is no civil war; it is the expression of defiance and struggle of a people who have seen people who posed as their "liberators" turning to be their oppressors with little care or concern for their problems and issues of daily life.
How did it end up that way? Definitely, that was not the way it was designed. Pre-war American intelligence went wrong in assessing Iraqi sentiments on the street and the administration could not care less when the truth emerged since, by then, the US military had secured control of the country. Most of the US media continued with their "patriotic" reporting, but always basing themselves first on their country's misguided "national security interests" and thus egging the administration while smoke-screening the realities on the ground.
And today we hear American officials accusing Arab media of biased reporting if only because they are asking uncomfortable questions and conveying the realities from an Iraq, Arab and Muslim perspective. What a laugh!!!!
Obviously, Washington has a different sets of rules of conduct, objectivity, accuracy and honesty for the American media and Arab media. But that does not mean the Arab media have to abide by the US-set rules and keep a safe distance from exposing the truth of how the Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims feel and experience from the results of American adventurism and quest for dominance.

A war that can't be won

April 8 2004
A war that cannot be won

PV Vivekanand



IT IS a pre-emptive war that the US and its coalition partners are waging on several fronts in Iraq — with the Sunnis to the northwest and northeast of Baghdad and the Shiites in the south. It is amply clear that the US provoked the clashes with the clear objective: Setting the ground for elimination of all groups and individuals of any signifance who could challenge the absolute US dominance of Iraq after the June 30 transition even before the symbolic and namesake transfer of power takes place.
It would be naive to assume that if something goes wrong with the US plans and somehow mounting American and coalition casualties might persuade the US into deciding to call it quits in Iraq. Leaving Iraq is not in the American cards, now or for the next decade or more, nothwithstanding any change of guard at the White House.
Iraq is too central and crucial to American strategic designs in the Middle East. It is unthinkable for Washington to pack up and let go of the strategic prize — direct and indirect but absolute control of Iraq — after having committed itself so deep there with hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
As William Cordesman, a widely respected American commentator puts it, defeat in Iraq would be an American disaster far greater than Vietnam.
"Regardless of whether the United States should have invaded Iraq, the fact is that it did," says Cordesman. "Its power and prestige are on the line. It also has stakes in the future of allied leaders in Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland. ... Its influence in the Gulf — with some 60 percent of the world's proven reserves of crude oil – is at risk, as is its strategic position in the rest of the Middle East."
However, the war is getting highly unpopular among Americans.
The latest Pew Research opinion poll showed that only 32 per cent of Americans believe the White House has a “clear plan” of what to do in Iraq. Only 50 per cent want to keep US troops in the country, down from 63 per cent in January. President George W Bush’s personal approval rating of 43 per cent is the lowest the survey has ever registered.
Against that backdrop, subduing Iraq and showing the American people that the US is continuing to call the shots in the country is equally vital to Bush's prospects for re-election.
That would not be possible if the US let the present situation in Iraq to continue. Washington wants to pre-empt all significant challenge to the post-June 30 situation in Iraq.
Bush himself declared that the US had to “stay the course, and we will stay the course [in Iraq].”
Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry does not think much differently.
While he favours UN involvement in Iraq, Kerry has also pledged his full support for “whatever’s necessary to protect our troops that are there and to provide for stability and success.”
Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a former secretary of state in the first Bush administration, has declared: “We have to start the killing... We have to do whatever it takes to put these people down.” Asked if the US should assassinate Sadr like the Israelis had murdered Sheikh Yassin, Eagleburger responded: “I think so.”

Not simple hostility

It is not simply anti-American sentiments that are driving the Shiites of the south to take up arms against the occupation.
With upto 60 per cent majority in the Iraqi population but under repression by the Saddam Hussein regime, the Shiites had seen Saddam's ouster as opening the door for them to exercise their democratic rights in the country. It presented them with the very opportunity that they had been awaiting for decades.
The Shiites did not engage themselves in armed struggle against the Americans. It could even be said that they gave one year to the Americans to prove themselves, but found that their interests were not being protected. On the contrary, they found that the US-drafted transitional constitution undermined their aspirations to keep Iraq undivided with all its natural and oil resources. The interim constitution gives the northern Kurds a veto of sorts while drawing up the final shape of the country; this could mean the Kurds possibly opting to break away and take with them the rich oilfields of Kirkuk (notwithstanding Turkish objections), according to the Shiite thinking.
Another equally strong reason for Shiite youth to step up their rejection of the American-led occupation and join Sadr was that little was changed on the ground in their daily life in the wake of their "liberation."
The Shiites of southern Iraq had always been denied social justice by the Saddam regime and their hopes of an improvement in the situation were shattered when they found out that the occupation army could not care less about their social conditions. Under Saddam, they were able to make a living, but under the occupation they were even deprived of that opportunity.
They also found that the American-led occupation authority in Baghdad was more interested in installing their hand-picked men in power and was giving priority to Baghdad and its surroundings in reconstruction work while the southern parts remained as neglected as they were under the Saddam regime; even more so, if anything.
Their hopes that they would be able to correct the wrongs of the past and exercise their majority power to improve their lot were dealt a severe blow when it became clear that real power will remain in American hands even after the June 30 transition, which is aimed at creating an impression that Iraqis are ruling Iraq. The new interim government will only be implementing the decisions made in Washington. It will have little credibility among Iraqis. To make things even worse, the senior-most Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, and most Sunni leaders have rejected the US plan.
While Sistani has so far not been associated with violent challenges to the US quest for supremacy in Iraq, others have dared to take up arms against the Americans in the country. And that is why the US provoked the ongoing confrontation with the firebrand Shiite leader Mortada Sadr and other Iraqi resistance groups in the so-called "Sunni triangle" outside Baghdad.
However, Sistani has extended implicit support for Sadr. He has issued a statement appealing for calm but condemning the US-led coalition and declaring that the actions of Sadr’s supporters were “legitimate.”
In return, Sadr has promised to deliver a "liberated Najaf in a silver platter" to Sistani, thus establishing that the two have reached an understanding under which Sadr would not challenge Sistani's status as the senior-most Shiite leader in Iraq.

The Iranian angle

It is unclear yet what role Iran is playing in the crisis. Tehran has a vested interest in averting a US-controlled government taking power in Baghdad. Surely Iranian intelligence agents are at work among the Iraqi Shiites, but the extent of Tehran's involvement remains uncertain at this point in time.
At the same time, Iranian traders are said to be active in southern Iraq.
Reports in Iraqi newspapers have complained that Iranian merchants are crossing the Shatt Al Arab waterway and exploiting the situation in Basra and nearby areas by buying en masse whatever is available in the market such as spare parts for automobiles and industrial equipment being brought in as well as scrap material, thus fuelling inflation in real terms and making it very expensive for reconstruction and revival of industries in southern Iraq.
That might indeed an issue of secondary importance, but it does contribute to a growing sense of despair among the Shiites that they are being victimised by all concerned.
To top it all came the Israeli assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in Palestine last month and the US position condoning the killing as demonstrated in White House statements as well as the veto the US used against a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the killing.
While the American behaviour was in no way a jolt from the blue — as Washington's track record shows its bias in favour of Israel — it was a reminder to the Shiites, as indeed for most other Iraqis. It highlighted that Washington could not care less about the elimination of Arab and Muslim leaders to serve Israel's interests and added to the growing anti-American sentiments among them.

'Benefit of confrontation'

That the US provoked the confrontation now with ulterior motives was underlined by the Washington Post this week.
The Post wrote: "There may ultimately be a benefit to this confrontation, which began just 88 days before the scheduled transfer of sovereignty from the US-led occupation authority to a new Iraqi government."
The confrontation is “a painful but necessary battle” and “US commanders should not hesitate to act quickly and use overwhelming force” to suppress the Iraqi revolt, said the paper.
The Post acknowledged that fighting had “a cost in Iraqi and American lives,” but it insisted that “the alternative—to step back from confrontation with Iraq’s extremists — would invite even worse trouble.”
Well, the "worse trouble" clearly means a major blow not only to Bush's chances of re-election in November but to America's quest for domination of the Middle East region and, in wider context as international commentators content, the global scene.
The ongoing clashes pitting Sadr forces and coalition soldiers from Spain, Itlay, Poland, Ukraine and Bulgaria in south Iraq and the American miltiary assault on Sadr City in Baghdad is sure to lead to a battle to the finish for both sides.
In practical terms, Sadr and his Mahdi Army on their own could put up stiff resistance and challenge the US military for some time but eventually they would be simply be crushed and eliminated from playing any significant role in the country's future. Surely, in the bargain, the US would have to take heavy casualties, but then Washington is ready to absorb them.
There is no shortage of conventional weapons in Iraq, and no doubt the anti-US forces have access to them, thus making certain that the US military would pay a heavy cost for putting down the rebellion.
There is no doubt that the US would employ whatever force and tactic it would take to wipe out Sadr and his supporters as well as his newfound Sunni allies even it means carpet bombings and raining missles on them wherever they are. It would be a bonus if the US military could catch Sadr alive because they could parade him in captivity for the benefit of American voters.
Indeed, Sadr has vowed fight until death in Najaf, the Shiite holy city in the south. Conventional wisdom says that the Americans might not launch an allout assault against Najaf because of religious sensitivities, but Wednesday's US assault of a mosque in Falloujah showed that those considerations play second fiddle to the goal of wiping out Iraqi resistance.

The American timing

Whether by design or coincidence, the US military strength in Iraq is a post-war peak now.
An overlap in the rotation of troops has increased the number of US soldiers in Iraq from 120,000 to 134,000, and the US has found the situation fit to launch the critical assault now, while retaining the option of sending reinforcements.
The US provocation started with the closure of Sadr's Al Hawza newspaper in late March on charges that it was inciting violence against coalition forces. Then the occupation authorities, working through the namesake Iraqi judiciary, arrested a close Sadr aide, Mustafa Al Yaacubi, and issued a warrant against Sadr himself on charges of being party to the killing of Ayatollah Khoei, a pro-West Shiite cleric who was flown to Najaf along with American forces shortly after the launch of the war in March 2003.
The moves were not scare tactics but were part of a well-scripted scenario.
The US military and the US overseer in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, knew that the moves against Sadr would have led to mass protests in both Najaf and Baghdad and armed clashes, setting the ground for the US push to "take out" Sadr and his top lieutenants.
Sadr has chosen to make his do-or-die stand in Najaf, and he is surrounded by his fighters who might be able to inflict considerable casualties among the Americans, but they are no match to the militarily stronger US forces in an overall context.
The US determination to "get" Sadr was amply demonstrated in the words of US General Mark Kimmitt: “Whether Sadr decides to come peacefully, or whether he decides to come not peacefully — that choice is the choice of Mister Moqtada Sadr.”
“Individuals who create violence, who incite violence... will be hunted down and captured or killed.," said Kimmit. "It’s that simple.”
Equally strong determination has been voiced by Sadr's Mahdi Army: "We are ready to sacrifice our lives for our leader Moqtada if the coalition troops touch a single strand of his hair.”
To make things worse for the US, tribal leaders of Sunni regions and from the largest resistance movement in Iraq have offered their services to Sadr.
Reports from Baghdad said that on Tuesday, three Sunni clerics handed over the message of support to the leaders of the Mahdi Army.
Abari said he represented the tribal sheikh of the Anbar province which contains Fallujah and Ramadi where fierce clashes were raging between US Marines and the Army of Mohammed, an umbrella organisation responsible for most of the anti-coalition violence over the last year.
A letter to Sadr's Mahdi's Army from Sheikh Harrath Salman Al Tey, the leader of the largest Sunni tribe and a man with massive influence Anbar, declared: "We are the Army of Mohammed and all of Ramadi and Fallujah (offer) our army and people and souls and hearts and weapons under your command. There is no more Shiite and Sunni, only Muslims, and now we will fight each other no more and together fight the same enemy."
That should indeed be a nightmare for the US in terms casualties on the ground, but certainly not enough to dissuade the Washington strategists for whom such declarations of open defiance help them identify hostile forces which need to be eliminated.
The intensity of the American military assault on Falloujah was no doubt fuelled by the killing of four Americans who served as gunmen for hire for private contractors. American television showed their bodies being dragged through the street, set afire and hung on a bridge.
Obviously the scenes were too much for Americans to take and that is reflected in the US military's action in Falloujah where they bombed out a mosque, killing at least 40 Iraqis who had taken shelter there.
Some analysts refer to the crisis in Iraq as the beginning of a civil war. That interpretation is countered by an argument that it is not as if two Iraqi groups are fighting each other; it is a war of resistance where the people of Iraq are resisting occupation forces, notwithstanding that the occupiers are backed by a few thousand Iraqi employees.
That might indeed be a tall claim, given that Sadr could not claim to represent even one third of the Shiites in Iraq. But he would pick up support from them in proportion to the use of American military strength to eliminate Sadr and his lieutenants.
US strategists are no doubt aware that they are not exactly enlisting more supporters in Iraq as every day passes by with no solutions to the daily life issues of the people of the beleaguered country. There should be a sense of urgency in Washington and we could expect to see it manifest in the days ahead.